Thursday, December 26, 2013

New Years is a time in which we reflect upon the
previous year and look forward to the new one ahead. In modern times, the day
has become a worldwide celebration in which people dance, talk, and drink away
the cares of the previous year and welcome the arriving year with a resounding
bang. As is the case with many holidays, however, the complications of making
plans, inviting friends, and finding an outfit to wear can seem to be more
trouble than the party is worth. Fortunately, there is one cinematic couple who
are always up for a rousing good time; The
Thin Man’s Nick and Nora Charles. Since their film debut in 1934, the pair
has stood for the fun, excitement, and revelry that the best holiday seasons
are made of. Here are three reasons why the sleuthing sweethearts are the best
movie couple to kick off your New Year with.

1.THEIR
WIT: Author Dashiell Hammet reportedly based the Charles’ off of a real life
couple who were both near and dear to his heart; himself and his longtime on
again off again girlfriend Lillian Hellman. The layabout former detective and
his party girl heiress wife at first seem to be an odd choice of counterparts
for the former detective turned hard boiled novelist and his award winning
playwright and activist lady love. Upon hearing the couple’s constant quips,
however, the Charles’ literary origins become obvious. Regardless of whatever
dangerous or outlandish situations they find themselves in, neither husband nor
wife ever fails to see the humor in the absurdities of modern life. The spouse’s
sense of humor perfectly suit each other as Nora’s restlessness and society
charm counteracts Nick’s world weariness and blue collar sensibility. Their
ability to laugh both with and at each other reveals that marriage has not
stamped out the spark of their relationship as they continue to maintain a
loving, intellectually stimulating, and above all fun partnership both on and
off the mystery trail. Through their wit, charm, and ability to laugh at the
madness that is life Nick and Nora remind audiences that monogamy doesn’t
necessarily entail monotony and tying the knot doesn’t always mean being tied
down.

2.THE
DRINKS: The only thing that sparkles more than the Charles’ wit is their
seemingly endless supply of champagne. Throughout the holiday season in which The Thin Man takes place, the couple
keeps the harsh realities of Depression-era life at bay with the help of a
Prohibition-era invention; the cocktail. There is scarcely a moment, let alone
a scene, in which either Nick or Nora are without a drink in their hands or a
slight slur in their speech. While today such revelry would be viewed as an
obvious indication of trouble ahead, the film instead indulges the pair and
portrays them as the light hearted, sharp witted, inebriates that we all wish
cocktails could transform us into. As a result, the film feels more like one
long eccentric party than a mystery with a missed beat of repartee or a spilled
drink carrying higher stakes than any murder that may occur in the couple’s
midst.

Our heroes in their natural state; severely hung over

3.THE
SUSPENSE: As with all great mysteries, The
Thin Man contains enough twists and turns to make even the most qualified
detective’s head spin. The plot begins with the disappearance of wealthy
inventor Clyde Wynant following the murder of his secretary turned mistress,
Julia Wolfe. What initially seems to be a straightforward case of murder and
fleeing the scene soon becomes muddled, however, when Wynant’s daughter,
Dorothy, begs Nick to find her missing father. Nick reluctantly takes the case
at Nora’s urging and soon finds himself caught in a web of deception lined with
scorned wives, sinister heirs, treacherous employees, and ruthless gangsters.
As the case goes on, each of the suspects reveals themselves to be far more
complex and colorful than either Nick or Nora could have expected. With each
new revelation into the characters of the suspects comes a new motive for the
murder and a new set of dangers for the Charles’ to sleuth their way out of. As
a result, there is virtually no way to guess who the murderer is, much less to
be sure why they committed the crime. Through the constant changing of alibis,
motives, and associations the cast keeps the audience on the edge of their seats
and scratching their heads until the last reel.

Through their combination of
laughs, thrills, and tipsy spills Nick and Nora Charles know how to throw a
first rate New Year’s Eve. The couple’s approach to life, love, and detective
work is just the breath of fresh air needed to welcome all that is new. While
their sophistication and suspense may be difficult to replicate, their spirit
of celebration is always present where there are good friends, good
conversations, and good liquor. Join Nick and Nora; you just might solve the
mystery of how to make your New Year’s Eve a truly sophisticated soiree.

Wednesday, December 25, 2013

Well another year has
come and gone. I’d like to start off by
thanking you, our loyal readers for checking us out each week and letting us
know that a good number of you are interested in the films we review. So as I reflect on all the crap that I’ve
watched this year it’s time for me to hand out my “SPLATTER! Awards”. Now last year, I just posted my 2012 Awards
on Facebook (I did not do an official post on blogger), because I only had 4
awards/categories. This year I’ve
expanded my SPLATTER! Awards to seven, and I personally feel that is enough
categories to release an official post.

*DISCLAIMER*

The Awards I am giving
out are strictly my own opinion and
will only be given out to films that I saw in 2013. There’s a very good chance that I did not see
some films in 2013 that may be considered the Best/Worst. So please do not comment saying “oh, what are
you talking about, this film was way worst than that” etc. My official cutoff date for films was
Thanksgiving, so if I didn’t include it on my list it is most likely because I
didn’t see it. All Films marked with an asterisk
(*) are brand new categories, hence the films I give them to will be the first
recipients of the award.

BEST FILM OF THE YEAR (The Best Film I watched released in 2013)

Last year was a
fantastic year for new films, but 2013 was—in my opinion—a “meh” year for film. I just don’t think there was as many good
films released this year as there were in 2012 or 2011. Then again, I didn’t see many films that
people said were great like “The Worlds End”, “The Butler”, “12 Years A Slave”,
“Oz The Great and Powerful”, “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire” and others. So my choice for the Best Film of 2013 goes
to “Insidious: Chapter 2”. I’m sure many
of you right now are telling me that I am wrong. I’m sure some of you would say that “The
Conjuring” was better than “Insidious: Chapter 2”. I respectfully disagree. The reason why I’m giving “Insidious: Chapter
2” the SPLATTER! Award for Best film of 2013 is because it had some interesting
twists to the original story. We’ve seen
the story to “The Conjuring” done so many times before, but “Insidious: Chapter
2” was different. It had twists, it had
thrills, and it didn’t have a single plot hole.
Any questions you may have had for the first film are answered in the
second film. I will say, that I didn’t
think the second film wasn’t as good as the original, but I still found it to
be a rather enjoyable film to watch, and was glad to see so many of the
characters we enjoyed in the original appear in this sequel. This is why I have selected “Insidious:
Chapter 2” as my recipient of the 2013 SPLATTER! Award for Best Film of the
Year. Here’s hoping for much better
films in 2014.

WORST FILM OF THE YEAR (The Worst Film I watched released in 2013)

Wow. Looking back at this year I watched so much
crap! I thought I saw some crap in 2012,
well this year I saw so much crap I didn’t even have time to write reviews for
some of the films I watched this year.
Last Year, I gave this award to “Girls Gone Dead” (which also won my
“Worst Film that I saw for the first time this year” award), and I thought to
myself that no film made or released in 2013 could come close to be that
bad. Well, I was wrong. The SPLATTER! Award for Worst Film of the
Year goes to “House of Bodies”, and just to help put in perspective how bad of
a film it is: this means that I thought
films like “Paranormal Asylum”, “Hansel and Gretel” (w/ Dee Wallace)**, “A
Haunting in Silver Falls”, “Darkroom”, “Sharknado”**, “The Purge”, “Movie 43”**,
and “Evil Dead” (w/Shiloh Fernandez)** were all better than “House of
Bodies”. Why do I consider this film so
much worst then the others is because this film had not one, but two Oscar
nominated actors in the film, and they were terrible. I can excuse “Paranormal Asylum” for being
bad because it’s just trying to rip off “Paranormal Activity”. I can excuse “Evil Dead” for being bad,
because it was a crappy remake of a much beloved Horror film. And I can even excuse “Sharknado” for being
bad, because it was produced by SyFy and we all knew we were getting a pile of
crap before we even watched it, but “House of Bodies” has no excuse. It had terrible a story, no shock or
entertainment, and did not let its actors live up to their full potential. Hell, even “Movie 43”, another film that
Terrance Howard appeared in, was more enjoyable then “House of Bodies”. All of the reasons are more than enough to
justify why I am naming “House of Bodies”, the Worst Film of the Year.

This year’s SPLATTER!
Award for Biggest Surprise of the Year goes to “Self Storage”, a film made and
produced in Rhode Island by the Woodhaven Production Company. This is the fourth film that the Woodhaven
Production Company has released since 2010.
Although they are still a small company the Woodhaven Production Company
has managed to show that they have potential, and “Self Storage” is their best
example. The film was written, directed,
and stars Tom DeNucci. He is joined in
this film by the acting talents of Eric Roberts and Horror Movie Acting legend
Michael Berryman. If you have not seen
“Self Storage” yet, you simply must. It
is a low-budget film, but it’s better than a lot of films I’ve seen this year
that were made with much larger budgets.

BIGGEST DISSAPOINTMENT OF THE YEAR* (A film I had high expectations for, but was
completely disappointed by released in 2013)

"The Most Terrifying Film" my a$$!

I’ll be honest with
all of you; this was probably my toughest decision I had to make this
year. I was disappointed with both Marvel
Superhero sequels—“Iron Man 3” and “Thor: The Darkworld”—but I know a lot of
people liked them, they did well at the box office, and they were sequels, so I
felt it would be unfair of me to judge them as sequel films, but want to know
even worse than most movie sequels?; movie remakes! So yeah, I hate remakes of films so when I
heard that they were making a remake of “The Evil Dead” I said that I was not
going to go and see it. Well the
marketing for this film and the trailers made it look totally awesome, and they
got me. So I spent my $10.50 on the
movie ticket and was excited, and after watching it I thought to myself that I
should have stuck to my gut instincts.
Man, did this film piss me off.
They absolutely butchered this film.
The new plot was awful, and I hated all the characters. Especially, actor Shiloh Fernandez. Why does he have to be in so many awful
films? What “Deadgirl” wasn’t bad
enough, he had to go and tarnish the legacy of one of the most beloved horror
films of a generation. What makes it
even worse is that this film actually had the blessing of Sam Raimi and Bruce
Campbell (the director and star of the original “Evil Dead”). Besides desecrating their own works, actress
Jane Levy, who played Mia in the film, said the film was a miserable experience
and that she would never want to appear in another horror film. So, yeah when your own cast doesn’t like the
film it might be a sign that your film is a pile of crap.

THE WHAT THE F*CK FILM OF THE YEAR* (The film released in 2013 that made me
proclaim to myself “What the F*ck?”)

How did you make so much money???

So the recipient of the
first ever “SPLATTER! Award” for the “What the F*ck Film of the Year” has to go
to “The Purge”. This film had one
interesting plot piece and it was what would happen if crime was made
temporarily legal once a year; more specifically what if murder was legal. I mean, why do they just focus on murder? Are you trying to tell me that if the
government allowed its people to commit whatever crimes they wanted, they’d all
choose murder. I find that hard to
believe that all everyone would want to do is murder. Seriously, no arson, no sex crimes, no
vandalism, or looting? If that wasn’t
weak enough, the film also had a ton of plot holes. Why are the bad guys so bent on getting one
homeless person? Why does the family
decide to hide him? How does their home
security system fail so easily? Not to
mention everything in this film was the sons fault! The reason why it is the recipient of this
award is because despite all of its flaws it actually made money! Not only that, but it made enough money to
garner a sequel...What the F*ck?! How did
this film manage to pull that off???
Well it goes without saying “The Purge” is more than deserving of this
award.

BEST FILM THAT I SAW FOR THE FIRST TIME THIS YEAR (This Award Goes to any film that I saw for
the first time this year no matter what year it was released)

This year’s SPLATTER!
Award for “Best Film that I saw for the First Time This Year” is a tie. Both films are a part of the same
franchise. The winners are “Grave
Encounters” and “Grave Encounters 2”.
What enticed me to check out these two films was the cover to the second
film. It looked very interesting and
since I wanted to see the second one, I knew I had to see the first one. “Grave Encounters” is following the recent
trend of Paranormal Investigative
Mock-umentary style horror films (similar to “Paranormal Activity”). I actually think “Grave Encounters” is the
best one I’ve seen so far. The way I’d
describe both films is like this. What
the first one lacks in scares, it makes up in story, and what the second one
lacks in story, it makes up in scares.

The second film actually has a distinguished honor of being one
of the few horror films I’ve watched where I screamed out in terror. So like I said, the DVD cover to the second
one made me want to see it. That weird
looking creature peaked my interest, and when it broke through the window in
the film, I remember jumping up in my bed and shouting “Ahh! Ahh!
What the hell is that?! What the
HELL is that?!”...I think it’s kind of pathetic, that I saw the monster before
the film and it still managed to scare the crap out of me as I watched it. Both of these films are fantastic, and if you
have not seen either “Grave Encounters” or its sequel, I highly recommend that
you go and do that now.

WORST FILM THAT I SAW FOR THE FIRST TIME THIS YEAR (This Award Goes to any film that I saw for
the first time this year no matter what year it was released)

“Birdemic: Shock and
Terror”...do I even need to explain why this film is so awful? It was my most popular audience request this
year, it was the first time I had ever seen the film (though I had heard many
negative things about it before I saw it), and yeah it’s awful...Don’t see it.

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

On Sunday, December 15, 2013 Academy Award winning
actress Joan Fontaine was pronounced dead at age 96 at her Carmel, California
home. Fontaine had a successful career that spanned from the 1930’s to her
final role in a made for tv movie in 1994. While a versatile actress, she is
best remembered for playing a pair of wives driven to the brink of insanity by
the secrets surrounding their marriages in the Hitchcock films Rebecca (1940)and Suspicion (1941).
Though the two roles were strikingly similar, it is still debated as to in which
film she truly produced an Oscar worthy performance, as many contend that
her win for Suspicion was given in
compensation for her failing to win for Rebecca
the previous year. While the question regarding the Oscar remains a matter of
opinion, there is no doubt that the film featured in this review, Rebecca, features Fontaine at the height
of her star power and acting range. Under Hitchcock’s direction, Fontaine
evolves from insecure waif to strong woman amidst the twists and turns of her
life as the second Mrs. De Winter.

The film begins as Fontaine’s character, known only
as “the second Mrs. De Winter”, is working as a secretary and companion to an
elderly English woman (Florence Bates) traveling in Monte Carlo. Although her
employer is obviously difficult and condescending, Fontaine mousily follows the
woman about without resistance, hanging on her every request. During the course
of the trip, she meets and begins a whirlwind romance with brooding widower
Maxim De Winter (Laurence Olivier). Although it is obvious to viewers early on
that Maxim sees her as his salvation after the loss of his wife, Fontaine
remains too in awe of the wealthy sophisticate to believe that he might share
her feelings. Just before she is scheduled to leave with her employer, however,
Maxim confesses his love and proposes to her. The happy couple relocates to
his mansion in the English countryside, Manderlay, bringing the carefree days
of their courtship and honeymoon to an abrupt end. Upon her arrival, Fontaine
realizes just how deeply both Maxim and the staff remain influenced by memories
of the first Mrs. De Winter, the deceased Rebecca. The manor’s imposing housekeeper,
Mrs. Danvers (Judith Anderson), possesses a particularly unsettling devotion to
Rebecca that quickly reveals itself to be far more sinister than a mere
maternal fondness. As the film goes on, Fontaine’s character is faced with a
series of disturbing revelations that force her to reexamine her positions as both
mistress of Manderlay and as Maxim’s wife.

Playing an ‘everyman’ character is never an easy
task for any actor. These parts often force actors to remain likable and unexceptional
in contrast to the challenging and colorful characters that put the story’s
plot into motion. As a result, while audiences are meant to relate to and root
for ‘everyman’ heroes, it is often difficult for such characters to be truly
memorable or original. This dilemma was made even more difficult for Fontaine
as her character was not only relegated to a ‘type’ but was also denied a back story,
or even a name, with which to enrich the role. The fact that the story was told
from the unnamed heroine’s point of view ensured that, for better or worse, the
film would hinge upon Fontaine’s performance. Fortunately for the cast and
crew, Fontaine was more than up to the task and portrayed the mysterious
heroine with a nuance and depth that proved crucial to the film’s success. Although
already twenty three at the time of filming, Fontaine imbued her heroine with a
childlike naivete and innocence that add a level of wonder and awe to her
romance with Maxim and change of fortune early in the film. As the
manipulations of Mrs. Danvers and stifling atmosphere at Manderly begin to take
their toll, however, she acquires a weariness and skepticism that prove she
is far from the “funny, young, lost” girl that Maxim once described her as.
Later, when she is faced with the possibility of losing Maxim after the truth
of Rebecca’s death is revealed, she is shown to be a capable and intelligent
woman as she quickly adapts to the situation and immediately plans a course of
action. In each of the film’s three acts, the heroine is at very different
stages of her emotional development, which Fontaine not only portrays, but does
so in a way that demonstrates the haunting effects of her life at Manderlay. Thus,
Fontaine’s understated performance not only brings the heroine to life, but
also elevates her beyond the ‘blank slate’ status that the script nearly
restricted her to.

Stop upstaging me!!

Like all Alfred Hitchcock films, one of the chief
assets of Rebecca is its atmosphere. Although
the film’s beginning in a glamorous resort initially seems to be a break from
the director’s trademark chills, the
setting is expertly used to cue viewers in to the characters’ idyllic emotional
state. Upon reaching Manderlay, however, the film takes a turn for the ominous as
the viewer is introduced to the suffocating world of Rebecca. Like the novel
upon which it is based, the film relies upon the implication and possibility of
danger, rather than shocking images, to create suspense. This technique allows
viewers to step into the heroine’s place as we try to navigate between real
threats and paranoid fears while the plot unfolds. This distinctly threatening
atmosphere also raises the stakes of a largely action free plot, keeping
viewers engaged in the characters’ struggles until the shocking twists set in. Unfortunately,
the film’s third act reverts to a courtroom drama, eliminating all of the
suspense and menace that was so effective at Manderlay. As a result, the film’s
pace begins to drag at the point in which it should be at its most riveting.

While the film rests primarily upon Fontaine’s Mrs.
De Winter, the supporting cast is equally excellent. Laurence Olivier portrays
Maxim with the ideal mix of brooding, tenderness, and internal torment that
brings credibility to each facet of his mysterious character. Similarly, George
Sanders is perfectly cast as Rebecca’s smarmy cousin/lover Jack Favell and
plays the scoundrel with equal parts sleaze, sophistication, and humor. By far
the most memorable character in the film is the wicked Mrs. Danvers, who is
able to manipulate those around her with calculated efficiency. In Judith
Anderson’s hands, the character develops beyond stock villain into an
omniscient, malignant, presence that stands in for the decaying influence of
Rebecca upon the De Winters’ lives.

Rebecca
is
a genuine classic that is often considered the “first true Hitchcock film”, and
the unforgettable villain and atmosphere leave little reason to wonder why. The
film marked a major turning point in the careers of both director Hitchcock and
leading lady Fontaine, which provided both with an essential stepping stone to future
successes. The film excellently mixes genres in its unique take on the modern
ghost story and offers a warning against the dangers of failing to assert oneself and pleasing others at one's own expense. I highly recommend this
film for those interested in the careers of Hitchcock and Fontaine, and those
who appreciate a bit of psychological suspense; but be warned, the memories of
Rebecca have been known to remain long after the ashes of Manderlay fade to
black.

I am a
cine-masochist. I actually get off a
little (psychologically) every time I force myself to watch a film that I know
is going to be a terrible. I proudly
boast that I have sat through “A Serbian Film” in its entirety on multiple
occasions. I’ve seen “A Clockwork Orange” dozens of times and regard it as one
of my All-Time Favorite films. I even
reviewed a film for another blog that’s plot revolved around the idea of a “Gay
Zombie Revolution”. I review trash, I
review sleaze, I review blood soaked pornography, and yet I am not ashamed of
the types of films that I have forced myself to watch. To this day, there are only a handful of
films I ever felt ashamed or embarrassed for seeing; films like the one I am
doing a Retrospect on today. Today, I
take a look back at one of the most infamous films ever made, the 1979
Erotic-Drama “Caligula”.

My First Impression of the Film

How did you get involved with this mess???

I was ashamed of myself
for making through the entire film in just one sitting. This film is an atrocious mess. It’s disorganized, it’s nonsensical, it
unintelligent, it is bad! I hated this
film, it is easily one of the worst films I have ever forced myself to sit
through. I had one reason to want to see
this film, and that was that its title role was played by Malcolm McDowell, one
of my favorite actors. “Caligula” also
features the acting talents of 8-time Oscar Nominee, the late Peter O’Toole,
and also featured future Academy Award Winner Helen Mirren. I’m surprised that
anyone had a career after this film. I
honestly do believe that this film is the reason why Peter O’Toole has never
won an Oscar. Plus, I like to think/
hope he was drunk when they filmed his parts.

My Impression of the Film after watching it a second
time

You make me sad Malcolm. So very, very sad.

I fully expected that
this film would cause my blood to boil over like the first time I watched it,
but much to my surprise, it didn’t make me angry, but rather it bored me. I could not get over how dull this film
actually was. There was no action, no
intelligent or memorable dialogue, and nothing of interest happening. I began to critique things like the costumes,
their hair styles, and the sets. To be
perfectly honest with you, that’s the only thing I thought about the film that
was good. It had these monumental sets
that just looked fantastic. I think this
is another one of those instances when you could watch the film with the sound
off and just admire the sets and what is going on in the background.

What I’d do to make the film better

It's such an awful mess!

It’s mind boggling to
find out how this film came to be. For one thing, the film was financed by Bob
Guccione “the founder of Penthouse Magazine”. So it’s understandable why there’s so much
pornography in this film. I don’t think
toning down or removing the sex scenes from this film would make it better, but
it shouldn’t be the primary focus of the film.
I honestly don’t know if this film could be improved or made better,
it’s so bad that I honestly believe that it’s beyond saving. The screenplay for “Caligula” was written by
acclaimed author Gore Vidal, and I was surprised at how bad it was. Upon, further research, I discovered that
Vidal did not want credit for writing this screenplay and disowned the film
mostly because director Tinto Brass and lead actor Malcolm McDowell changed the
point-of-view of his original screenplay.
This film is a poorly adapted bio-pic of one of the most notorious
leaders in History. Caligula reign as
filled with sex, violence, and other untold horrors, so it’s quite a shame that
the film’s crew chose only to focus on the sexual aspects of his life.

My Final Opinion on this film

It’s trash, of
course. And it’s not even the good type;
it’s just an atrocious film, with little to nothing to offer its audience. I don’t even think this is one of those “so-bad-that-it’s-good” films, I just
think it’s bad. The late Roger Ebert
called this film “sickening, utterly worthless trash” and is one of only three
films he ever walked out on! That is
saying something considering how many bad films Roger Ebert was forced to sit
through. Do I think people should see
“Caligula”? No, I do not. I think that “Caligula” is one of those films
that should be ignored until it slowly fades away from people’s memories. I know, I will never make an attempt to sit
through this film ever again, and that is a promise.

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Confessions of a Film Junkie: Cinema Debates “What is the Best
Christmas Movie?”

A Joint Review By: Lauren Ennis & Brian Cotnoir

Oh it’s that wonderful
time of year again. The trees are
covered in tinsel, the halls are festively decked, the eggnog is roughly 80%
Kentucky Bourbon, and of course all those timeless Christmas Classics are
running on TV. But what is the Best Christmas Movie? Miss-E and I have decided to present our
arguments and let you our audience decide who is right this week as we debate
what we believe is Best Christmas Movie.

It’s a Wonderful Life (By Lauren
Ennis)

The holidays are a time in which people come together with their
friends and families and celebrate traditions both established and emerging.
One tradition that many seasonal celebrations share is the viewing of holiday
movies that convey the meaning of the season in original and timeless ways.
Personally, I enjoy a variety of Christmas themed films every year ranging from
children’s cartoons to the more risqué humor of A Christmas Story. Amongst the numerous picks that I refuse to miss
each year, one film stands out for its ability to tell a truly unique story
that has continued to resonate for generations; It’s a Wonderful Life.

Someone's lost their Christmas Spirit :(

The film begins in an unusual manner with two angels watching
from heaven as small town banker, George Bailey, contemplates suicide. The
story then flashes back as novice angel, Clarence, reviews George’s entire life
story in hopes of finding inspiration as to how to reach George before it is
too late. The flashbacks show how George began his life as a hardworking,
enthusiastic, boy, and grew up to become an ambitious and restless young man.
As the flashbacks continue, however, it is revealed that George spent most of
his life sacrificing his own desires and ambitions in order to help others and
maintain his personal integrity. Clarence soon learns that it is this life-long
accumulation of chances missed and dreams sacrificed that has ultimately led
George to his hopeless state. Clarence then comes down to earth and uses his
new insight into George’s character to show George that there is always hope,
and despite his regrets, he really does have a wonderful life after all.

It just gives you a case of the "warm fuzzy's"

My favorite aspect of this film is the way in which it places
the importance of its story first and holiday sentiment second. While the film
begins and ends on Christmas Eve, the majority of the film takes place across
various seasons, which allows the film’s primary focus to remain on George and
his predicament. Unlike many holiday films that feature stereotypical heroes
and villains, Wonderful Life is
consistently honest and three dimensional in its portrayal of small town
America and the people who inhabit it. It is this approach that ultimately wins
viewers over and makes them care about the utterly unremarkable George, while
reminding them to see the hope and promise in their own lives. Similarly, the
film’s refusal to soften its dark themes adds poignancy and urgency to the
plot’s proceedings. The film also avoids the common holiday film trope of
either evading controversial topics or overemphasizing them to boost an
otherwise mediocre plot. Instead, the film utilizes George’s contemplation of
suicide to examine the often discouraging trials and tribulations of everyday life
and the fulfillment that makes them all worthwhile. This film is excellent
family fare that challenges its viewers to look at the regrets in their own
lives and while reminding them of the simple wonder in each and every life.

Merry Christmas too all :)

Although the film was written with the struggles of Depression
and World War II era America in mind, It’s
a Wonderful Life is a true holiday classic for all nations and generations.
It is a modern fable of small town life that highlights the importance of each
person to the lives of those around them in such a way that audiences can
reconsider the often underestimated value of their own lives. The film also
provides lessons in the importance of maintaining one’s values despite the
short term benefits of doing otherwise; lessons that remain essential from
childhood to old age. Above all, It’s a
Wonderful Life is a film that reminds both the young and old that “no one
is a failure who has friends” and each life, no matter how seemingly ordinary,
is truly important.

Hobo With a Shotgun (By Brian
Cotnoir)

Now I know so many of
are probably saying that “Hobo with a
Shotgun” isn’t really a Christmas Movie, but I ask you to look at this film
more closely you will notice this film is just a Metaphor of the Bible.

Let’s
look at the Hobo (played by Rutger Hauer).He clearly represents Jesus Christ.He is a man who enters a world of sin and looks to rid the world of that
sin.However, instead of educating the
world through proverbs and other important messages he uses a shotgun.During one scene in the film when he is an
innocent bystander to a violent armed robbery at a Pawn Shop, he grabs a
shotgun off the shelf and opens fire on the robbers.During this massacre we see the Hobo make the
sign of the cross and says “hallelujah”.The Hobo is aided in his quest to rid the world of sin by a prostitute
named Abby, who represents Jesus’ close ally and friend Mary Magdalene—who was
also a prostitute.In one scene, we see
the Hobo approaching a man in a car dressed as Santa Claus where he shouts
“Jerk on this you child molesting shit-licker!” before blowing his head off
with the shotgun.To me that line
represents the idea of Corporate America using Santa Claus to “molest”
children’s minds with the idea that Christmas is more about toys and other material
goods rather than the ideas and teachings of Jesus. At the end of the film the
Hobo dies in a bloody execution (much like Christ), and I think it represents
the Hobo is dying for the sins of the people of Hope Town in order to make it a
better place.

Ridding the world of Sin (...one shotgun shell at a time!)

SYMBOLISM!!!!!

That’s
not the only similarity between the films plot and what occurs in the bible.
Let’s look at the character “The Drake” who I believe is a representations of
the Roman Emperor Pontius Pilot.The
Drake is a crime boss, and he is the person in control of the fictional town of
Hope Town (or “F*ck Town” as so many of its residents crudely call it).Whatever he says, is law, he is the towns
Judge, Jury, and Executioner and he even has his own preferred method
execution: “The Glory Hole”.The Glory
Hole, in some ways, is like crucifixion, but a lot messier.Those unfortunate enough to be sentenced to
the Glory Hole have a barbed wire noose placed around their neck (very similar
to the crown of thorns that was placed upon Jesus’ head during his
crucifixion). The Drake is aided in his quests for mayhem and destruction by
this two sons Slick and Ivan, who are every bit just like their father.

The Glory Hole

During
our first introduction to Ivan in Slick as they aid their father in the public
execution of their Uncle Logan, Slick and Ivan reminisce about their dislike
for their uncle.Ivan says to slick “You
know, I remember that this f*cker used to give me the sh!ttiest Christmas
presents”, at that moment Slick brandishes a switchblade and irks this phrase:
“I hate Christmas”.Slick openly admits
to hating Christmas, and by that admission admits to hate Christians as well.Later when the Hobo and Slick have their
first one-on-one encounter Slick brandishes a large knife and tells the hobo
“Well you better cut [a welfare check] to Mother Theresa, so you can give it to
her while she’s finger-banging you in Hell!”.This sends the Hobo into a blinding rage as he attacks Slick while
exclaiming that Mother Theresa “is a God Damn saint!”; further supporting my
earlier argument that the Hobo is actually Christ and knows Mother Theresa
personally.Slick despises the Hobo so much
that there is a scene where he’s sitting a table with his brother Ivan and
their father, with a bunch of dummies re-enacting the scene from “The Last
Supper”, and Slick expresses his desire to “crucify [the Hobo] to a homeless
shelter”. Upon hearing this notion, the Drake suggests him to not search for
revenge and instead attempt a more terrifying method of terrorism.

If these reasons aren’t
enough to convince you that “Hobo with a Shotgun” is the Best Christmas Movie
Ever, then I seriously suggest that you re-watch this film and count how many
references to the Bible and Jesus that there actually are in this film.

Thursday, December 5, 2013

“Glamour girl by day, revolutionary scientist by
night” sounds like the sort of description reserved for a Bond-girl or a
character in a particularly ridiculous romantic comedy. In actuality, the
description would make an excellent and entirely accurate tagline for the story
of 30’s and 40’s cinema icon Hedy Lamarr. Stifled by the gender restrictions of
her day, Lamarr used the profits from her ditzy screen persona to pursue
personal fulfillment in the form of scientific research and technological
inventions. While she is best remembered for her truly exquisite appearance and
several light-weight performances, it is the efforts of her beautiful mind that
have left the deepest impact upon modern society.

Lamarr was born Hedwig Eva Maria Keisler on November
9, 1914 in Vienna Austria, to banker Emil Keisler and pianist Gertrud Keisler. She
grew up with a largely uneventful and comfortable childhood, and went on to
study acting under renowned director Max Reinhardt in her teens. In 1933, she
attained her breakout screen role as a neglected young wife who finds
fulfillment in a heated affair in the controversial art house film Extase. Although the plot was slight,
the film went on to become a notorious hit, largely due to Lamarr’s nudity
during a skinny dipping scene and close-ups of her face in what would today be
considered a tame sex scene. Following the film’s release, she embarked upon
what would later prove to be a disastrous marriage to her first husband, munitions
dealer Fritz Mandl. In her biography, Lamarr describes Mandl as controlling and
recounts how he attempted to seize all existing copies of Extase in order to prevent any viewers from seeing her risqué performance.
According to her account, Mandl was more than a mere arms manufacturer and actually
possessed close financial ties with dictators Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini,
who had attended several parties at the couple’s castle home. During the couple’s
regular social gatherings, Mandl would often discuss business with his fascist
associates who were very much interested in ways to improve upon and implement
military technology. Unbeknownst to Mandl, Lamarr paid great attention to these
discussions and used them as the basis for her knowledge of applied science.
Eventually, Mandl’s fascist support became
too much for the Jewish Lamarr to bear and she escaped to France. Her method of
escape remains up for debate to this day, with one version stating that she
drugged her maid and stole the girl’s uniform to disguise herself, and another
saying that she hid in a brothel where she worked as an escort until she had
saved up enough money to secure passage out of Austria. In either case, the
trip proved to be a fateful one, as she began an acquaintance with studio mogul
Louis B. Meyer in Paris, marking the start of her second life as a Hollywood
screen siren.

Upon arriving in the United States, Meyer
rechristened her with the stage name ‘Hedy Lamarr’ (a combination of her
nickname and the last name of silent star Barbara La Marr) and ordered that she
undergo the required studio makeover, which primarily consisted of a regimented
diet. She later met and made a strong impression on leading man Charles Boyer
while at a Hollywood party. Boyer reportedly took one look at Lamarr from
behind and determined that she “must be a beautiful woman” even though he had
yet to see her face. He quickly began a conversation with the still unknown starlet
and demanded that she be cast in his new film, Algiers. The film was released as Lamarr’s first American feature in
1938 and received rave reviews from both critics and audiences. Although she
had minimal screen time in the film, her role as a jewel thief’s kept-woman
love interest nearly won her the strikingly similar role of Ilsa Lund in
Casablanca four years later before a scheduling conflict led to the casting of
Ingrid Bergman. She
went on to star in a series of successful films for the remainder of the 1930’s
into the 1940’s in which she acted alongside such legendary stars as Clark
Gable, Spencer Tracy, John Garfield, Lana Turner, and Judy Garland. Despite her
success, she was unfortunately often relegated to parts that emphasized glamour
over substance and failed to utilize her acting talent. As a result, she often
found herself bored while working long hours on films that required little artistic
effort and returned to her other creative outlet; applied science. During the
lengthy breaks between scenes, she would lock herself in her trailer and create
blueprints and outlines for various inventions. While other stars occupied
themselves by chatting with their costars or other, trivial, pursuits, Lamarr used
the free time to create, amongst other inventions, improved traffic signals, a fluorescent
dog collar, a redesigned Kleenex box, and modifications to the Concorde jet.

The days when it was still shocking to strip on camera

By far the most substantial of her inventions was
the Frequency Hopping spectrum. Lamarr’s Austrian-Jewish heritage made the World
War II Allied cause particularly close to her heart, and led her to dedicate
herself to finding a way to aid the war effort. During and prior to World War
II, torpedoes were controlled by radio signals that were prone to being jammed
by broadcasting inteference. The widespread use of radios in the 1940’s caused
consistent signal interference that limited the accuracy and efficiency of
torpedoes. In the early 1940’s, Lamarr
began a friendship with her neighbor, avant-garde artist George Antheil, who
was working with a series of experimental instruments, including a set of
synchronized player pianos. While observing Antheil’s pianos, she noted how
their programming caused each piano to ‘hop’ from one note to another in unison
and began to wonder why radio signals couldn’t do the same. She theorized that synchronizing
radio signals to jump from one frequency to another would make it much more
difficult for the Axis to pinpoint the signal’s location and jam it with
broadcast interference. After countless hours of work, Lamarr and Anthiel completed
their invention and brought it before US naval intelligence. Despite the fact
that the invention would have served its purpose and prevented the enemy from
detecting torpedo signals, military experts rejected it. Adding insult to
injury, the navy told Lamarr that the best way for her to serve the cause was
by using her looks and celebrity status to sell war bonds. The device was not
implemented until the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, and by that time Lamarr and
Anthiel had unfortunately let their patent expire. Frequency Hopping went on to
become the basis for Spread-Spectrum Communication technology, which is utilized
today in Blue Tooths, GPS systems, internet WiFi, and the majority of modern
military technology. Lamarr finally received recognition for her work when she
received the 1997 Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Pioneers Award, but Anthiel
had unfortunately died nearly forty years earlier in 1959.

Despite Lamarr’s scientific and cinematic success,
her personal life was rife with complications. Following her marriage to Mandl,
she was married five more times, with each marriage ending in divorce. She
adopted son James Markey with her second husband, Gene Markey, and gave birth
to another son, Anthony Loder, and a daughter, Denise Loder during her marriage
to her third husband, John Loder. By the 1950’s, her career began to decline as
younger stars were cast in the ingénue roles that she had been restricted to
for so many years. Over time, she spent her considerable fortune and was arrested
on charges of shoplifting in 1966 and 1991. She also sued director Mel Brooks in
1974 for invasion of privacy (for unauthorized use of her name) after he named the
male villain in Blazing Saddles ‘Hedley Lamarr’. The case was eventually
settled out of court and the character’s name remained intact. She filed a
similar lawsuit against CorelDRAW Software after they used a Corel-drawn image
of her as a cover design without her permission in 1996. Corel argued that Lamarr
did not own the image, and that case was also settled out of court in 1998. As
her star began to fade, she regarded her career bitterly saying, “The ladder of
success in Hollywood is usually agent, actor, director, producer, leading man.
And you are a star if you sleep with them in that order. Crude but true”. She also
dismissed her glamorous persona and resented the fact that it was her looks
rather than her intelligence that she was best remembered for, saying, “Any
girl can be glamorous. All you have to do is stand still and look stupid”.
After becoming increasingly reclusive starting in the 1960’s, she died of heart
failure at age 85 on January 19, 2000 at her home in Cassleberry, Florida.

It is often said that one cannot judge a book by its
cover; a statement that Hedy Lamarr’s story undoubtedly personifies. While
dismissed even at the height of her popularity as a ‘dime a dozen’ starlet, she
was far more interesting and complicated than the pretty faces that she was
surrounded by in Hollywood. By using her intellectual gifts, she was able to
defy the constraints of her era and create a truly innovative invention that
has shaped modern technology as we know it. Next time you use your Bluetooth, GPS, or
cellphone, I hope you take a second to think of Hedy Lamarr, a woman who was
truly ahead of her time.

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

"Jaws”; not only is it
one of my Favorite Films of All-Time, but it is one of the Greatest Films Ever
Made. Seriously, how many times have I
made references to “Jaws” on this blog?
I can’t even count. “Jaws” is one
of the three most common references/influences that I’ve seen in Horror films
(the others being Serial Killers and Movie monsters). If you go to Netflix right now there are over
10 Films about Shark attacks. However,
for every good Shark Attack film you get like a “Jaws” or a “Deep Blue Sea”,
you get a dozen films like “Sharknado”.
And then every now and then you get a good “Jaws” spoof like “Sand
Sharks” or “Jersey Shore: Shark Attack”. But if Hollywood
has taught us anything about films it’s this: when any idea in film is overly
successful, just try to copy exactly what they did.So just three years later, in 1978, after
“Jaws” left an entire generation “too terrified to go back into the water”
audiences were treated to not one, but two films that were blatant rip-off’s of
“Jaws”, both film opting to use another creature from the deep, in lieu of a
shark.These are the two films that I am
reviewing today, “Piranha” and “Barracuda”.So how badly did these two films taint the legacy of “Jaws”?

“Piranha”

“Piranha” is the story
of an insurance investigator named Maggie McKeown who is sent to the Lost River
Lake to investigate the disappearance of two missing teenagers. While searching through the mountains she
comes across a mountain man named Paul Grogan, who Maggie recruits into helping
her try to locate the missing teens. Maggie
and Paul come across and abandoned Army testing site and suspect that the teens
may have drowned in a giant water tank on the property so they decide to drain
it, in hopes of finding the teens remains.
Unfortunately, for Maggie & Paul they have just released a
super-breed of killer piranha that can survive in cold waters, into the local
rivers that serve as tributaries to a new beach resort and a children’s summer
camp. Now Maggie, Paul, and the United
States Army are in a race to stop the killer piranha from spreading out and
saving as many lives as possible.

Our Heroes(?) ladies & gentlemen

So I wouldn’t
necessarily call this film a complete “rip-off” of “Jaws”, because it does do
something’s that I actually enjoyed.“Jaws” gave people the idea in your mind that the ocean is not safe;
“Piranha” gave people the idea that the lakes and rivers are not safe, so they
managed to tackle a new demographic.Although, there are no (confirmed) reports of a human being eaten/killed
by a school of piranha the films story actually does a very good job explaining
why thepiranha are more
aggressive.According to the films plot,
the Army was performing an experiment on piranha’s called “Operation:
Razorteeth” in which the piranhas were being bred to survive in cold water and
eat everything in sight.The Army had
hoped to release the piranha in the rivers of North Vietnam to combat the
Vietcong, but when the war ended so did Operation: Razorteeth.The Army tried poisoning the piranha, but a
small group managed to survive their strongest poisons and began rapidly
breeding.

So Much Blood :)

The one thing that “Piranha”
has on “Jaws” is that it’s more violent.
There’s more blood, more guts, more stuff shown as opposed to “Jaws”
where some of the scariest parts were the
things you didn’t see. I did see the
2010 re-make as well, and although I didn’t find it to be all that good, I
didn’t totally despise it. The one thing
that the original “Piranha” has on the re-make is it was scary. Look at who a majority of the victims in
“Piranha” (1978); they were children at a Summer Camp and families who were on
vacation. Who were the victims in
“Piranha” (2010); A bunch of drunk, moronic, and naked college students. Who are you going to feel more sympathetic
towards? The children and families, I’d
hope. So right away the re-make is less
scary and more exploitative than graphic.
“Piranha” (1978) did contain some nudity, but compared to the amount
shown in the re-make it’s like a freaking Disney flick.

“Piranha”
does have its faults though. Most of the
time you only see the silhouettes of the piranha traveling through the water,
it’s a pretty cheap effect. At least
“Jaws” had the benefit of a mechanical shark in their film. The film also does make a few references to
“Jaws” in the film, but it’s more like they’re paying tribute, rather than
ripping off or making fun of the film.
So is this a good film? Yes, it
is. I think if you’re a fan of a “Jaws”
than you most certainly will be a fan of “Piranha”.

“Barracuda”

Now you want to talk about a bad film that
is a rip-off of “Jaws”; then let’s talk about “Barracuda”. Released the same year as “Piranha”, “Barracuda”
is the story of a young marine biologist named Mike Canfield who believes that
a chemical company in Palm Coves is polluting the oceans and contaminating the
water. He’s trying to get the Chemical
plant shut down for pollution, but he accidentally ends up uncovering a massive
government cover-up that could mean even worst news for him and the residents
of Palm Cove.

Should have been called "Garbage"

The
major problem with this film is that it tries to have an “Environmental
Message”. The chemical dumping in the
ocean is what causes the barracuda to attack humans, and yeah that’s their
motivation, I guess. See, want to know
what’s great about “Jaws”, it’s just a hungry-freaking-shark! It’s not a genetically
mutated or new super breed of shark.
It’s just a big great white shark that eats people. Even in “Piranha” the reason why they were
aggressive was because they were bred that way as part of an experiment. The barracudas in “Barracuda” are attacking
because the chemical company is dumping waste from a new medicine developed by
the town’s physician and mass produced by the chemical plant. This causes the barracuda (and most of the
town’s residents) to suffer from “Hypoglycemia” (?) and it causes people and
the barracuda to act very hostile. The
only reason why the barracuda are attacking people is because they’re a little
angry. That’s not scary. Not
only that, but I’m just not going to be that scared of a barracuda. Yes, I’ve read that some barracuda can grow
to over 7 feet in length and have been known to attack human beings from time
to time, but like the piranha’s I have found no reports of a human being ever
being killed by a barracuda. I think I’d
be more scared of a swarm of piranha because they are smaller and there are
many of them. If I had a choice between
rather taking on a swarm of piranha or a barracuda, I’ll take my chances with
the barracuda.

Not
only that, but the effects in “Barracuda” are incredibly cheap and lousy. “Jaws” had Bruce, a bada$$ mechanical shark, “Piranha” managed to scare people
without having to show actual piranha’s (they just showed gratuitous amounts of
blood instead). But the effects in
“Barracuda” are really bad. The
barracuda looks like a rubber puppet.
The best way I can think to describe “Barracuda” is it’s like if Ed Wood
tried creating his own version of “Jaws”.
It’s just really boring, really cheap, and not even worth wasting your
time on. Just do yourself the favor and
see “Jaws” and if you liked that then maybe check out “Piranha” when you’re
done.